19 January 2006

Ephemera @ Architecture Boston magazine: Daniel Libeskind


copyright 2006 Architecture Boston magazine, Boston Society of Architects

The elusive and unassuming Robert Campbell, Boston’s homegrown architectural critic, hosted a glittering night at the Museum of Fine Arts in tweed. He sat on the stage opposite Daniel Libeskind of WTC fame and bantered with the black-clad maestro in front of the hub’s benefactors, architects, educators, and intelligentsia. Campbell is one of the sharpest critics around, a Pulitzer recipient and an architect. Libeskind had been a paper architect for 30 years before he completed the remarkable Jewish Museum in Berlin (1999). He is the architect for the permanent home for the New Center for Arts and Culture (NCAC) to be built on the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

Three cheers to the NCAC visionaries who correctly wagered that an audience could handle an evening without pictures or PowerPoint. The sold out crowd came to hear a conversation between two quick wits coming from opposite sensibilities, a sort of speed repartee about everything architecture. The two discussed spectacle and representation, Libeskind’s virtuosity at the accordion, and the creative process. Libeskind spoke with a Polish accent at super sonic rate while smiling incessantly. His answers never precisely addressed the questions; like his architecture, his mind worked allegorically.

Case in point: Campbell noted Libeskind’s trademark cowboy boots—black with pointed toes—and the famous glasses that got New Yorkers sprinting to their opticians. Libeskind’s comeback, “I never do anything that doesn’t have a point” immediately warmed the audience to his eccentricities, but kept his inquisitor off the scent. Never straying, Campbell asked which was Libeskind’s favorite Boston building. His answer: the Paul Revere House in the North End. “But how,” asked Campbell incredulously, “could you love something that’s completely fake?” No matter, grinned his interviewee, it is a powerful place that provokes a deep sense of history. Fake or not, that’s where he would take his family first to drink up the spirit of the city.

When Campbell opened to questions, hands shot up everywhere. The questions revealed a thoughtful and educated audience. So architects should listen up: there is public interest in the conversations forming our built landscape, and you can leave your laptop at home. Listening to an architect freed from his renderings is like reading the book versus seeing the movie; Libeskind constructed his philosophy with wit and charm.

19 December 2005

Why I write


My mother gave my daughter a cuckoo clock for her third birthday. The cuckoo was my suggestion, and this was an aberration. I have trouble with routine; the idea of something predictable happening hour after hour makes me miserable. Heralded by the recorded sounds of a running brook, the bird emerges. We watch and clap. My daughter is delighted; she wants it again and again. Some would say that constancy in life is a good thing, a touch of regularity in this imperfect world.

But time is tricky: it’s either for or against you; it has trouble with neutrality. Four years of college seemed interminable, and suddenly then it was over. I washed dishes at a Maine inn that summer, waiting impatiently for the career muse to lead me to salvation, to Wall Street, Madison Avenue, or Quito. At twenty-one, I was 100% potential energy—the ball at the top of the slide. Applying basic physics, once I got moving, I figured it’d be pretty fast going. That’s what I feared: this incredible momentum, a single trajectory, and someday, standing at the bottom, looking back up, regretfully.

The innkeeper’s daughter was my age, and had just been unhitched by her fiancĂ©. We sat on my porch at night and read stories about Maine and Manhattan, stories I’d written in the fog of June. When fall threatened, I went back to New York City with her. We found an apartment and I went to an employment agency, baited by a glamorous job description. My friend spent hours over beer with me trying to find an honest enough answer to the question, “So, why do you want to go into advertising?” I took my first typing test, went to an interview in the “lipstick building," then fled from the plasterboard walls, off-gassing carpets, and automated phone systems in my blistering pumps.

I once tried to list all the jobs I’d had before I graduated; I got to thirty, but every so often, I remember one that I’m sure I’d forgotten when making my list, so there is no complete accounting. I read Christie’s catalog of china soup tureens to a blind writer on Park Avenue; I assisted a fashion photographer and learned about Dektol and cellulite; I answered phones at an art gallery, surrounded by Stellas, and made a feed bowl of oats and seeds for the owner every noon. When I returned, I worked in a bookstore. I got fifty percent off, free magazines, and found myself surrounded by kids my age who are, no doubt, now holding tenure-track positions at prestigious colleges. I snuck around, reading the books my co-workers were consuming, and thought that I’d found heaven. Late in the fall, I discovered architecture.

An architect’s product is space; it is a wordless world that was reluctant to take me in. It seduced because it was foreign: something I couldn’t talk or write my way through. I spent years letting go of language, allowing the drawing to speak, and then to making it speak for me. I earned entry through perseverance and practice; architecture played hard-to-get, but occupied me entirely. This affair with architecture does not end, though we are opposites. It is silent and I am not; it is slow and I am impatient. I am a stickler for using the correct word, while architecture feels free to co-opt “program” and “volume” and “sublime” and contort their meanings beyond recognition.

I approached architecture from different angles. I framed a Maine house one fall, took studio classes in different cities, and worked for a former architect who went into project management. I married and got a Master of Architecture degree from the University of Pennsylvania. I traveled. We moved to Cambridge and I found a job in a medium sized firm. Now, after five years of practice, as I am about to get licensed, I am rediscovering my passion for words. Just as in art, I never enjoyed creating something from nothing. I needed rules, at least a site, from which I could start. When I write about buildings, what architects say and what they do, I am an activist, an observer, an editor, and a proselytizer. I have reframed my native tongue through study of a visual language.

I believe architecture is powerful. It is part of a continuum that crosses generational, geographic, and stylistic boundaries. Buildings comprise our physical memory. They make up our cities, shape the land, and create or destroy community. They are our public countenance and our private thoughts. Architecture and writing meet at a spellbinding place— solitary arts for public consumption, reinforcing each other, feeding each other. I practice them alone, best at night, when the house is quiet and dark. Time is languid. It lingers at two, drifts into three, and at four, I am warm, accomplished, asleep.

The cuckoo calls to us hourly. I pick up Samara and we count the cuckoos together while I study his miniature chalet, imagining it nestled into an Austrian mountainside. Behind his closed doors, my daughter has told me, he plays the piano. My mother worries that the cuckoo is lonely. Maybe he cleans all day. Maybe he hosts lavish parties with good food and witty repartee, excusing himself for his brief hourly stint with the phrase, “It’s a living.” This clock is more than a clock. It is a home, a baroque piece of architecture for a tiny, punctual bird. Words, visions spoken aloud, have brought these things to life and made them precious. Which explains my passion for the moment when language and design intersect.

19 October 2005

Ephemera @ Architecture Boston magazine: Tim Love


copyright 2005 Architecture Boston, Boston Society of Architects

If you want to be a star, you need to figure out what makes you shine. Some of us glow from dumb luck, others are truly talented, and then there’s the Timothy Love brand of wattage: the fabulously self-conscious, mega-intelligent, super-ironic formula for fame and fortune, wholly owned by Utile, a subsidiary of the Tim Love machine.

You may know Love as the youth hired by Machado-Silvetti to run the sprawling Getty Museum project, or later, as the pizza-bearing project manager who got an entire neighborhood behind the “radical” design of the Allston Branch library. In his latest incarnation, Love is the president, vice-president, and treasurer of Utile, Inc., an architecture firm in Downtown Crossing, Boston. It seems during his tenure at SOM in New York, and then at M-S, Love had a lot of time to think about what’s wrong with the classic star-firm paradigm. When Love started Utile three years ago, his manifesto was a business plan, not a design philosophy.

The second slide Love showed his audience at the BSA Conversation on January 11 was not a sexy FormZ rendering of an un-built project. What he showed was the inelegant business-cycle chart of his company, ostensibly written on the back of a napkin. This is Love’s version of the Gettysburg address, the work of the genius hastily scrawled for lesser minds to admire, awestruck. But don’t be fooled.

This chart revealed that Love is setting about the job of kicking “the academic establishment” on its indigent rear-end. He approaches developers by selling them on his own pre-researched development schemes on pre-researched plots. He is fluent in developer speak, tossing around words like “pro-forma” and “net-to-gross calculation”. He can (and has) build a 24-unit condo building, with parking and 261 identical windows, for $108 per square foot. His looks at parcel ownership maps the way normal architects look at figure-ground plans. He mingles with Massport and other big owners/planners, does anything for them, trying to position himself ahead of the RFP. His hope is to ultimately bypass the RFP step altogether by being at the rightest place at the rightest time. He pursues grants with proposals shrewdly designed to appeal to his market-driven clients. He will even work for free to demonstrate to a reluctant developer the Utile cost benefit.

So how’s the architecture going? Love showed two projects in construction: the aforementioned condominiums, and a new block of townhouses, both in South Boston. This isn’t shiny magazine material. It’s a little like McDonald’s Big Mac: scientifically researched, analyzed, and marketed to appeal to the broadest possible client pool, but still appearing somehow homespun and simple. Maybe that’s not quite fair. Tim Love is a grown-up, and he knows good design from bad. Maybe his brand of architecture (thus far) is a built version of the Arch Deluxe: an upscale burger for the more sophisticated palette.